• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Conservatism needs work

Status
Not open for further replies.
Progressivism is thrashing in Europe and the United States, and our interdependence on the global economy means there will be no insulation for us when the crash comes (Our Own Progressives are busy fighting against the current Government, and we havn't slid as far down the slope as many others....yet). This article speaks about the beginning of the fall, what Conservatives/Classical Liberals/Libertarians need to do now is not only look to the future and take active measures to protect ourselves and loved ones, but also to work to define the shape of the coming order. If we do not, the chaos will breed the "Man on the White Horse" and the changing order will become the "New Order"

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/10/20/gone-with-the-wind/

Gone With The Wind
October 20, 2010 - by Richard Fernandez

Headlines saying the UK is cutting half a million government jobs and slashing welfare are running alongside stories describing street battles in France over plans to increase the retirement age. “Teams of riot police carried out dawn raids to free France’s oil depots on Wednesday as industry said the strikes against pension reforms were costing them at least £100 million per day.” The cuts will save Britain a paltry 81 billion pounds over four years. Even if the French government succeeds, it will only raise “the minimum retirement age by two years to 62 and the age for a full pension to 67, moves that would put France in line with other Group of Seven nations.”

Six out of ten Frenchmen oppose the pension changes and the outcry in Britain is certain to be loud and anguished. The scale of conflicts required to achieve relatively minor cuts in state employment and entitlements has prompted Paul Watson to ask, “How will Americans react when the government begins to impose the same austerity measures that are causing riots, street battles, fuel blockades and other assorted chaos in France? Will we witness mass civil unrest or will the sleeping middle classes continue to scratch their butts and watch Dancing with the Stars?”

Nobody is betting on Dancing with the Stars. Even Time magazine is spooked. Stephen Gandel recently examined the possibility Americans may resort to a “civil war” if the Fed goes through with its plans to support government spending by printing money. He writes that “November 3rd … could be the most important meeting in Fed history, maybe. … To say there has been considerable debate and anxiety among Fed watchers about what the central bank should do would be an understatement.”

    Chairman Ben Bernanke has indicated in recent speeches that the central bank plans to try to drive down already low-interest rates by buying up long-term bonds. A number of people both inside the Fed and out believe this is the wrong move. But one website seems to believe that Ben’s plan might actually lead to armed conflict. Last week, the blog Zerohedge wrote, paraphrasing a top economic forecaster David Rosenberg, that it believed the Fed’s plan is not only moronic, but “positions US society one step closer to civil war if not worse.” … with the Tea Party gaining followers, the idea of civil war over economic issues doesn’t seem that far-fetched these days. And Ron Paul definitely thinks the Fed should be ended. In TIME’s recently cover story on the militia movement many said these groups are powder kegs looking for a catalyst … Fedamageddon.

Armed conflict is probably not in the cards. But the situation is serious. Just how serious is a problem the press is now having a problem estimating. The problem with living in denial is that once the illusion shatters, the pendulum is apt to swing completely the other way.  Overconfidence can be instantaneously replied by blind panic in the press. It’s easy to see why.  All around the liberal landscape the pillars are collapsing. When the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby notices that Barney Frank can’t play the gay card any more, a tectonic shift has occurred.  Frank has gone from a man who would win by twenty points “no matter what he did” to a tired old man fighting for his political life in the bluest of blue districts.

    Mr. Frank, 70, has not faced a competitive contest in over two decades. But Mr. Bielat is a compelling candidate, a fresh-faced former Marine with a Georgetown-Harvard-and-Wharton pedigree, and he is trying to capitalize on the anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the country. With less than two weeks until Election Day, he has made this race far closer than anyone anticipated (Mr. Frank even lent his campaign $200,000 of his own money this week.).

How bad things will turn out to be in the next few months is a matter of conjecture. What appears to be true is that the old certainties are finished. By how big a margin is the question. The arithmetic is brutal. The money that once supported the welfare state is gone. Big Government “Hope and Change” is dead because it’s broke. Broke. Broke. Ask the Fed. All the protests in the world are not going to change that fact. Neither is all the printing in the world.

Worse, the ability to bluff is gone. The social shields that have long surrounded progressive politics are down. The automatic deference to the gatekeepers has evaporated and blown away. People are no longer intimidated by fancy titles and Nobel Prizes. News that Justice Alito is not attending the president’s next State of the Union Address and that Virginia Thomas has called Anita Hill asking her to apologize for her accusations against Clarence 20 years ago suggest that even politesse no longer trumps concern over the issues. No longer is it possible for one Washington insider to speak in family confidence to another. Remember how Saruman tried to cut a deal with Gandalf?

    Are we not both members of a high and ancient order, most excellent in Middle-earth? Our friendship would profit us both alike. Much we could still accomplish together, to heal the disorders of the world. Let us understand one another, and dismiss from thought these lesser folk! Let them wait on our decisions! For the common good I am willing to redress the past, and to receive you.

That didn’t work because the “high and ancient order” was finished. We may be in a similar situation today. The old fabric has been rent; or rather it is being remade, but into what nobody knows quite yet. It remains to be seen whether Western societies can adapt quickly enough over the next few years to avoid the twin dangers of a doomed attempt to afford the past or a descent into chaos caused by an inability to accept the demise of the old order. Success will depend on how quickly we can free ourselves of outmoded ways of thinking. Can the Left face a future without itself? Probably not. Can the bureaucratic elites, who have ruled the roost for so long, accept that they have to find new careers for themselves? Maybe. But if the recent increase in the crisis tempo is any indicator, the answers to those questions will be required sooner rather than later.
 
What conservatives need to do is more explicitly stand for small government and individual rights. I'm tired of conservatives babbling about "Freedom" and "Government off your back" and then use elected office to tell me who I can marry, what I can watch, what I can read, and what I can put into my body. All in the name of upholding their Moral Order; much of it influenced by the Bible
 
Transformation will take a long time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8114728/The-West-is-turning-against-big-government-but-what-comes-next.html

The West is turning against big government - but what comes next?
The struggle to curtail the social democratic state could have ugly consequences, says Janet Daley.

By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM GMT 06 Nov 2010
445 Comments

In the US the electorate has ushered in a wave of small-government Republicans
There seems to be only one political argument of interest left in the Western democracies: how “big” should the state be, and what are the proper limits of its responsibilities? Abstract as it may sound, this question has had a quite startling impact on the everyday experience – and voting habits – of people in the most advanced countries of the world.

In the United States, the electorate’s considered answer to it has humiliated a president and swept an extraordinary number of neophytes – whose primary attraction was their loathing of government power – into the most powerful legislature in history. In Britain, it has become the dominant theme (in fact, the raison d’être) of a coalition between a Left-of-centre party and a Right-of-centre one, which has managed to achieve a remarkable degree of agreement on the need to reduce – or, at least, to examine rigorously – the role of government intervention in all areas of social life.

The dominant economies of Europe, too, are going through quite momentous re-examinations of the post-war philosophy which accepted the state as an unquestionable source of benevolence and all-pervasive social justice. And this massive reassessment of the role of government has not come about simply because of the economic crisis, and the terrifying degree of sovereign debt which it produced. The governments of what were the richest countries in the world may be broke, but what is interesting is their response to this: the plan is not to make themselves rich enough once again to do all the things that they used to do, but to rethink the whole enterprise so that government never again finds itself so extravagantly overextended.

On this side of the Atlantic, there is now a broad understanding that the social democratic project itself is unsustainable: that it has grown wildly beyond the principles of its inception and that the consequences of this are not only unaffordable, but positively damaging to national life and character. The US, bizarrely, is running at least 10 years behind in this process, having elected a government which chose to embark on the social democratic experiment at precisely the moment when its Western European inventors were despairing of it, and desperately trying to find politically palatable ways of winding it down.

The American people – being made of rather different stuff and having historical roots which incline them to be distrustful of government in any form – immediately rejected the whole idea. But in Britain, too, among real people (as opposed to ideological androids) there is a general sense that governments – even when they are elected by a mass franchise – become out of touch and out of control, and that something essential to human dignity and potential is under threat from their overweening interference.

So a generation after the collapse of totalitarian socialism, its democratic form is finally crumbling as well. And, oddly enough, the latter may take longer than the former to unravel. The one virtue of totalitarian governments is that they can be swept away in a single blow, either through violent overthrow or – as in the case of Soviet communism – by their populations simply walking out from under them. But social democracy has the supposed legitimacy of the consent of an electorate which has exercised a free political choice.

In fact, of course, this choice has been almost entirely spurious: the consensus politics of post-war Europe, and certainly of the EU, have made it virtually impossible to vote against the basic tenets of democratic socialism. Even Thatcherism – which was as close to a repudiation of the post-war concord as we have had – never dared to touch the fundamental structures of the welfare state, or even to halt its expansion.

But now that we have all (apart from the ideological androids) come to pretty much the same conclusion, what is to be done? How can the mechanisms that entangle government in virtually every aspect of our personal and communal affairs be disengaged? And how can populations which have, perhaps against their better judgment, become dependent on the state, be enabled to take back what should be their rightful liberties and responsibilities?

The rhetoric is easy and attractive; the actual dismemberment of the beast quite appallingly traumatic. Local sensibilities vary: in France, they go out on the streets and throw things at the police when they are told that they will have to retire at the age of 62, rather than 60. In Britain, there are lobbyists who will defend a housing benefit system that allows people who have never worked to live in accommodation fit for millionaires. So what are the minimum requirements of the new social contract which government must offer to the people if it is to escape from the absurd dilemma of being in charge of everything when it is scarcely any good at running anything?
If ordinary citizens are to be expected to take back more control and moral responsibility, then some pretty basic things will have to be on the table. First, they must be allowed to keep significantly more of what they earn. The lowering of taxes cannot be a vague intention or a pious hope. It is a sine qua non of a more self-reliant, independent, morally resourceful private life. (And, contrary to the androids’ argument, lower taxation does not conflict with cutting the deficit: in fact, lower rates of tax will increase growth and revenue.)

Second, indigenous populations must not be forced to compete with unlimited low-wage imported labour. If working people are to fend for themselves and support their own families without help, they cannot be under-bid for employment by migrants who, as often as not, have no dependants and no permanent obligations in the host country. The uncontrolled movement of peoples around the globe is problematic for welfare states – which can end up supporting them – but it may present even more dramatic difficulties for a country with a contracting state. The combination of reduced welfare and unlimited migration could produce ugly consequences which no responsible person wants to see.

Finally, government must make us an honest offer. The rhetoric needs to be turned into a systematic programme that takes the moral instincts of ordinary people as its starting point, but goes on from there to outline a feasible idea of what it will be like to live under this new dispensation – which makes clear that there is as much to be gained as will be lost. Get past the threats and the vague hopes: give us a clear picture of where this is all going, and what is expected of us.
 
Since the latter half of the 1960’s and up until now, right leaning and conservative Canadians have watched in horror as the Canadian Left has slowly eroded away at our national heritage and Judeo-Christian values, replacing our honor and our pride with watered down new nationalism consisting of bashing upon the United States and applying the usage of “Eh” at the end of any sentence. 

Now for Canadians who oppose this rather tepid and uninspired “New Nationalism”, haven’t had many options in the past, other than immigrating to the United States, where they have found their new fellow citizens share with them a common bond, but also have found that every time they venture back to their country of birth, they feel more disconnected from it, to the point where one day, they either abandon their Canadian Citizenship entirely or it simply becomes a footnote to tell their children and grandchildren about.

Now the question posed to us, is how do we make conservatism both more relevant in Canadian society? I believe that by making the following changes, we can stem the exodus of right wing Canadians and make conservatism relevant in the Canadian political area.

The Issues:

Free Speech:

Now when it comes to freedom of speech, Canada would rate rather highly by international standards, but unfortunately we are not fully free to express ourselves. I would like to direct your attention towards the “Section 01” of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes a “Limitation Clause” which does not protect all free speech.

Now to many conservative minded Canadians the idea that your speech could be regulated or even challenged under the law, is both fairly abhorrent and defies the freedoms in which our forefathers fought and died to defend.

Now some will tell us that we should limit things such as hate speech, or the promotion of genocide or any other topic which we might find unpleasant. The problem with this line of thinking is that, all sides should be able to express their views, no matter how offensive, ill informed or wrong they may be. After all, the cornerstone of a democracy is the right for the citizenry to be heard, and that voice should be unimpeded, no matter what it feels the need to express.


Firearms Control:

Now many on the left would tell you, that by limiting the ability of citizenry to bear and keeps arms makes for a safer society, but this is simply not true!

For many years now, the Canadian population has had their firearms rights either abrogated or restricted to the point, where Canadian Citizens now have to take mandatory firearms courses, register their weapons with a large and ineffectual government body and finally will no doubt be found guilty if they were to ever use those weapons in defense on their own dwelling. Now thankfully our friends at the National Rifle Association, and its Canadian equivalent the National Firearms Association have helped to stem some of the ludicrous legislation put forward by those on the left, for the most part we are slowly trundling down the path to becoming a firearms free country.

After all, when did we vote to abrogate our right to self defense, and put our fate in the hands of ruffians, rapists and murderers? I for one, feel unsafe in most parts of Canada these days, as I know that if I were to be assaulted, I would no doubt be faced by an armed attacker, who could cause me grievous bodily harm or potentially kill me, but if I were to defend myself with a less than lethal alternative such as OC spray or an ASP baton, I would be treated on the same level, as those who have attempted to accost me, and God forbid if I were to use a firearm.


Gay Marriage:

Though in recent years this issue has mostly faded into the background, but for many conservative Canadians it remains a strong bone of contention.

Now like many changes that tend to happen in modern Canadian society, rather than being put to a vote, the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry was taken out the hands of the Canadian voter and pushed through the legislative process as though it were nothing more than footnote to larger and more pressing national concerns.

Now for anyone of faith, the idea that homosexuals can marry is a fairly repulsive concept, but what furthermore puts the proverbial stick in the eye, when it comes the gay marriage debate, is the fact that men on the cloth who volunteer to serve in the Canadian Forces, are forced to allow gay marriages in their place of worship, even though their calling as a man of God, expressively forbids this practice.


Socialized Medicine:

Now some will say, that one of the greatest things about living in Canada is our access to “free healthcare” though for anyone who has had to endure the nightmare that is the Canadian healthcare system, they’d rather worry about co-pays than have to deal with the “quality” care that is the Canadian Healthcare System.

Now many activists will tell you that in the United States, that socialized medicine is a right and that they’d rather have a country that took care of everyone, and in no way would want the citizenry to have any form of personal responsibility for their healthcare needs. Now I will admit that it’s true that in the United States that many Americans are uninsured, and do not have regular access to a healthcare provider, but I can also unequivocally say that no one is ever turned away, contrary to myth popularized by the left in Canada.

Socialized medicine, does not provide a better standard of care, and more than often it’s actually worse than if an individual did not seek treatment at all. Also, when it comes down to brass tacks, there’s no such thing as free healthcare, but instead we are simply being gouged by the government, while not having the option to seek private care, unless you leave the country.


The Solution:

If we want to create an atmosphere in Canada that is more friendly to conservatives and right wing minded people, then we must push for judicial reform when it comes to our freedom of speech and expression, and push for the repeal of “hate speech laws” and any other judicial activism that infringes on the rights of Canadian Citizens to freely express themselves.

On the issue of firearms control, conservative Canadians must educate their fellow citizens about the right to bear arms, and we must push for both the establishment of a constitutional reform that would recognize the right to keep and bear arms, along with the right to concealed carry and the right to defense of one’s property (Castle Doctrine).

With reference to the issue of gay marriage, a simple solution would be to push for a repeal of the current status of gay marriage, and then to push for constitutional reform on the issue, and hopefully allowing for the passage of a defense of marriage act, that would protect traditional marriage, and would permanently bar gay marriage on Canadian soil, or the recognition of gay marriages abroad.

Finally, when it comes to the issue of socialized medicine, the first step must be the repealing of the Canadian Healthcare Act, and allow doctors to charge what they feel is reasonable for their services. Also, the insurance industry in Canada would expand, thereby creating jobs and making for a more prosperous and healthy nation.


In conclusion, with a little bit of gumption, and willingness to seek change, conservative Canadians can again make Canada a shining city which the world would envy, and would do much to stem the “brain drain”, and make the decision to move down to the United States, a climatic one, rather than a political, economic or moral decision.


 
Find a me a conservative politician who is not a demagogue and I'll vote for them.
 
Nemo888 said:
Find a me a conservative politician who is not a demagogue and I'll vote for them.

So you're saying you don't vote at all right? Every politician in Canada is a demagouoe including Count Iggy and gang and Taliban Jack et al.
 

I was going to say a lot, but on reflection......it's free speech  ::)

Now some will tell us that we should limit things such as hate speech, or the promotion of genocide or any other topic which we might find unpleasant. The problem with this line of thinking is that, all sides should be able to express their views, no matter how offensive, ill informed or wrong they may be. After all, the cornerstone of a democracy is the right for the citizenry to be heard, and that voice should be unimpeded, no matter what it feels the need to express.

 
GAP said:
I was going to say a lot, but on reflection......
I agree.
I spent about 10 minutes trying to draft a response, but even as a self-described conservative, I'm left with.....  :brickwall:



...who has yet to see any lemming-like exodus to the US  ::)
 
Ex-SHAD said:
Since the latter half of the 1960’s and up until now, right leaning and conservative Canadians have watched in horror as the Canadian Left has slowly eroded away at our national heritage and Judeo-Christian values, replacing our honor and our pride with watered down new nationalism consisting of bashing upon the United States and applying the usage of “Eh” at the end of any sentence. 
...
The Issues:

Free Speech:
...
Firearms Control:
...
Gay Marriage:
...
Socialized Medicine:
...
The Solution:
...
In conclusion, with a little bit of gumption, and willingness to seek change, conservative Canadians can again make Canada a shining city which the world would envy, and would do much to stem the “brain drain”, and make the decision to move down to the United States, a climatic one, rather than a political, economic or moral decision.


Many will not be surprised that I, a self-described classical liberal (which, generally, is taken to mean modern conservative), disagree with you.

Freedom of speech is not a conservative/liberal issue; it is a freeman vs subject issue. You are correct in the symptom, hate speech and embarrassment are not, in any way, sufficient to restrict the right to free expression of opinion, subject only to a few (existing) laws about inciting violence and the like, but I think you are wrong in the 'cure.' The right cure is a change in social attitudes which will, in due course, rid us of Human Rights Tribunals and all that trash.

Firearms control is a political but, mainly, bureaucratic or management issue. Both liberal and conservatives may, and do, support or oppose ranges of firearms control measures.

Gay Marriage is not a political issue. Marriage itself ought not to be a political marriage. It is a religious custom that need not and should not be regulated in any way at all by the state – again subject only to not being cruel to animals, etc. Child rearing and support are not 'marriage' issues but  children can and should be protected in law. Gay marriage does not matter to any real classic liberal/,modern conservative; it does matter to a religious minority which must never be allowed to impose its views on the rest of us.

Heath care is, inevitably, an economic and management issue. It will, eventually, be resolved because the existing system is economically unsustainable. Again both liberals and conservatives will hold ranges of views about the 'right' mix of solutions but some mix is on the way.
 
E.R. would you call yourself a Progressive Conservative or the new Conservative?
Here's hoping the answer is Progressive Conservative.
 
Baden  Guy said:
E.R. would you call yourself a Progressive Conservative or the new Conservative?
Here's hoping the answer is Progressive Conservative.


I've been a Conservative voter ever since Trudeau; before that I was a Liberal. I have been an active monetary supporter of the Conservative Party (in its various guises) since I retired from the military.

I thought and still think that Pierre Trudeau was a national political, policy and economic disaster: without a doubt the worst person ever to hold high office in Canada. I despaired through the essentially Liberal Mulroney years and even worse through the Trudeau rudux era of Chrétien. Harper is modestly more classically liberal than he is neo-conservative which makes him the only half decent prime minister since 1967.

What I cannot abide are:

1. Economic illiterates - e.g. the BQ, NDP and over half of the current Liberal caucus;

2. Policy vandals - everyone who thinks Trudeau was anything other than a nightmare; and

3. The religious right - who are entitled to their opinions but who must never, ever be allowed to try to impose them on you and me.

But, you know, if the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers and had they, therefore, drafted John Manley to be leader a couple of years ago, and had he disavowed the Trudeau legacy - not in so many words, of course, I might be a Liberal today.
 
recceguy said:
So you're saying you don't vote at all right? Every politician in Canada is a demagouoe including Count Iggy and gang and Taliban Jack et al.

I always vote locally, but not always nationally. I generally hate party politics. Party tribalism subverts the Democratic process. I agree that all parties are ruled by demagogues.

I think the best  conservative in recent memory was Paul Martin. Turned around a 42 billion dollar annual deficit and paid down 36 billion in debt. Had the balls to restructure CPP so we might actually get pensions when we retire unlike the gutless Americans. In his first budget as leader he brought in increased armed forces spending and national childcare with NO deficit  and even reduced corporate taxes. Started the public investigation into the sponsorship scandal.

He was more great accountant than demagogue. No charisma.

No wonder Liberals axed him. He was the best Conservative PM in living memory.
 
In his first budget as leader he brought in increased armed forces spending and national childcare with NO deficit  and even reduced corporate taxes.

Really?

Those nasty Conservatives must of got rid of that childcare thingy.....damn..... :eek:
 
What does that even mean? He balanced budgets and was fiscally responsible. True Conservative values. Maybe if we could throw out Harper and make McKay the leader the Conservatives might actually have a chance at a majority. Harper is just not great leader material. The left won't stay split forever. They will do what the Reform and Conservatives had to do in the end.
 
Nemo888 said:
The left won't stay split forever. They will do what the Reform and Conservatives had to do in the end.

There's no way the NDP and Liberals will ever merge. The NDP is far too stuck in the 1950s socialism to ever be a real threat to lead the country, the Liberals only need their votes now because they can't figure out who to lead the party because they really have no platform than "whatever the public wants".
 
They will form a coalition. Which they can do even with a split vote.  Harper is a lame duck and can't get a majority. The only person I can think of to replace him (who could get a majority) is McKay. Harper needs to go.
 
Nemo888 said:
They will form a coalition. Which they can do even with a split vote.  Harper is a lame duck and can't get a majority. The only person I can think of to replace him (who could get a majority) is McKay. Harper needs to go.

Any coalition would have to be absolute, ie: no conditional membership like the BQ in the last attempt. I suggest that talk of a coalition has to be brought forward early in an election so as not to appear to shanghai the vote after the fact. Notwithstanding, I doubt that the Libs or NDP will stand on principle in the next election any more than they did in the last. After all, both leaders categorically dismissed the possibility of a coalition, and then attempted to form one almost immediately after the vote tally.

Unfortunately, Mr Harper is violently disliked by the MSM which uses their privileged position to cast him in a many negative slants as they can. I wager a third minority government for the Conservatives will force a leadership review that Mr McKay might well win.

My  :2c:
 
Harper's done very well with what he's given. I'm pretty sure this is the longest serving minority government in Canadian history, which is something at the least. His leadership style, however, doesn't lend well to most people. I do think Peter McKay would make a good leader (and garner those extra votes for a majority), especially with being the MND during the majority of the Afghanistan Conflict. I think Iggy's one misstep away from either a snap election in which he'll fail miserably, or a leadership review. Either way he's gone.
 
PuckChaser said:
I think Iggy's one misstep away from either a snap election in which he'll fail miserably, or a leadership review.

Neither of which would be bad for the Conservatives. Looking at potential replacements for Mr Ignateff, Bob Rae is almost universally hated in Ontario, and Denis Coderre is almost universally hated in Quebec.

I look forward to the ensuing "night of the long knives".
 
I am still of the opinion that the Liberal Party has passed the best before date (several bloggers have pointed out the Liberal decline actually began in the 1990's when they essentially became an Ontario only party; today they are dug into Toronto and even that stronghold is being attacked at bayonet point by the Conservatives, NDP and Greens).

If there is any hope for the Canadian Left to regain power, the NDP (as the largest and best organized national party) will have to take the lead and court the Orange Liberals, the Bloc and the Greens to create a unified Socialist Alliance Party.

If the Conservatives want to gain a majority, I will take the counterintuative approach and say they need to ditch "Liberal lite" and openly stand for "Classical Liberal" principles. The TEA party movement in the United States demonstrates that people do believe in principles and will support politicians who will act on these principles (how well this actually works in practice is going to be interesting to watch). This might also trigger a "coalition of the winners" as Blue Liberals caucus with the CPC as a better vehicle to express their values.

I would think that the current stalemate should have people thinking of out of the box approaches, so expect strange trial baloons and shifting alliances as the parties experiment to break the logjam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top